Here’s the Skinny on Obama’s Insults from “Turdblossom”
By NoQuarter on April 15, 2008 at 10:29 AM in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Media, Pennsylvania, Race, Race Card
Say what you will about Karl Rove. I could say a few things myself. And have. Many times. But, he’s been doing some smart analyses on Fox News. And last night’s is another example.
Now here’s Pat Buchanan on Obama’s remarks about Pennsylvanians — in which it’s obvious that Obama showed his TRUE feelings about small-town white people, and perhaps almost all white people. Well, except for the academic elites he enjoys running with, like unrepentant terrorist and “distinguished professor” William Ayers — about whom you can read numerous articles here, including Larry Johnson’s “Obama’s Terrorist Ties” and my “Hannity: Like a Dog With a Bone.”
It was said behind closed doors to the chablis-and-brie set of San Francisco, in response to a question as to why he was not doing better in that benighted and barbarous land they call Pennsylvania.
Like Dr. Schweitzer, home from Africa to address the Royal Society on the customs of the upper Zambezi, Barack described Pennsylvanians in their native habitats of Atloona, Alquippa, Johnstown and McKeesport.
[Quotes Obama]
This is the pitch-perfect Hollywood-Harvard stereotype of the white working class, the caricature of the urban ethnic — as seen from the San Francisco point of view.
As Linus clung to his security blanket, Barack is saying, out-state Pennsylvanians, bitter at the world that has passed them by, cling to their Bibles and guns and naturally revert to ancestral bigotries against “people who aren’t like them” — blacks, gays and immigrants.
Though he sees himself as a progressive who has risen above prejudice, Barack was reflecting and pandering to the prejudice of the class to which he himself belongs, and which he was then addressing.
[...]
… Toward these folks, Obama’s attitude is not one of hostility, but of paternalism. Because time has passed them by, Barack believes, they cannot, in their frustration and bitterness, be held fully accountable for their atavistic beliefs and behavior.
Though neither mocking nor malicious, Barack’s remarks are, nonetheless, steeped in condescension. Inherent in his words is that these folks in Middle Pennsylvania are in need of empathy, education, assistance and perhaps therapy.
Then, interestingly, Pat Buchanan ties Obama’s San Francisco remarks to those he made in his famous, and much-heralded, speech on race in Philadelphia. Buchanan quotes Obama’s Philadelphia speech:
"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race … as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything. … They … feel their dreams slipping away … opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.
"Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism."
In Barack’s mind, black anger and resentment at "racial injustice and inequality" are "legitimate." But the anger and resentment of white folks, about affirmative action, crime and forced busing are born of misperceptions — and of "bogus claims of racism" manipulated and exploited by conservative columnists and commentators to keep the racial pot boiling and retain power, so the right can continue to do the bidding of the corporations that are the real enemy.
Barack has stumbled into the eternal failing of the left-wing populist. He cannot concede that the anger of white America — that its right to equal justice has been sacrificed to salve the consciences of guilt-besotted liberals — is a legitimate anger. …
Read all of Buchanan’s new essay, “In Darkest Pennsylvania.”
There are so many issues on which I disagree with Pat Buchanan. But I’m not afraid to post the opinions of so-called “rightwing” analysts when I think they have a point to make.
There’s a rabidly pro-Obama, goofball site that gave me an award the last time I quoted Pat Buchanan in a story. I’ll probably win another with this post.
And, no, I will not name the site, or provide its link, because it is so immature in its thinking that the bloggers there cannot conceive that anyone could ever even LISTEN to someone with a different point of view.
I rail against such rigidity in one’s viewpoint. I believe strongly that I am never harmed by listening to Karl Rove or reading Pat Buchanan because — maybe — I’ll learn something. Or that, even if I disagree in full with what they say, they will stimulate my thinking about a certain topic. That is never harmful. Never.
ot…..in an earlier post I had asked a question. I had asked why was Jimmy Carter really going to meet with Hamas and could it be to speak for Obama…..maybe this is the answer…
http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/one-degree-of-separation-klein.html
Sorry to post it here but I thought it was important for all to see.
Yeah I posted Rezko elsewhere around here too. I mean this is a HAMAS endorsement of Obama for God’s sakes.
I keep saying it and I mean it: Obama has no intention of ending the war, he intends to reverse the direction of the fire.
Yes towards Israel.
Few people know that Pat Buchanan was the only Nixon insider who refused to go along with Watergate.
And lived to tell the story.
Kefa… good link. This in particular caught my eye:
Even terrorists are projecting their own agenda on to Obama. Everyone also thinks he’s the king of political posturing. Ha! From the mouths of terrorists.
I am sorry to read the line about “someone on behalf of the Obama campaign”. Who else could it be except the man who has already declared that he intends on meeting with Hamas… Jimmy Carter. Wow, I had a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter, but if Jimmy Carter meets up with Hamas, he will lose some of my respect.
I worry about Carter. He is elderly and I wonder about his thought processes. It all just doesn’t seem like him, does it?
Jimmy Carter is senile….I don’t know what else to call it..
This is one of the major weaknesses of the left - right paradigm. When you cannot listen to your polar opposites then you lose. I give special exception for turds like Dick Morris who I cannot listen to, but its not his philosophy that I abhore. But by and large when people insult “conservatives” or “liberals” just for being “conservative” or “liberal” it shows more about the one lobbing the insult.
Lately the Obama supporters have been unwavering in their name calling and gloating. Is this the glowing change Obama said he was bringing to the political dynamic?
It is funny that I have my views of Obama and when I stand for them, Hillary Clinton gets all the blame and credit for my individual views.
Today I stand up and say, OBAMA IS AN ELITIST, but Clinton will be the only name they aim at when they respond. And they seem to only be able to respond in the same way the obessive Bush supporters do about him. Criticize Bush for anything and the Bush supporters dismiss you as “bush haters” and now if you criticize Obama then you are dismissed as an “obama hater”. Do they not realize that they really expose themselves as terribly ignorant when they do this?
I read around the blogs yesterday a bit and found lots of Obama supporters attacking Clinton for what Obama said. He says something, she becomes the target. This is fucked up and I am not going to become an Obama supporter by November at this rate. I have options, so I don’t have to vote for Democrats.
Rove is a voice in the mix. I happen to see him as a traitor. But I don’t discount his political experience as a manipulator and a guy who is watching and keenly aware of patterns. Obama is his target and the Obama supporters would be wise to pay careful attention to his focused comments.
I agree with you about Dick Morris.
The problem with Morris is that he is so CONSUMED by anger and resentment towards the Clintons that it clouds his judgment, and makes him say often ridiculous things. (For example, he predicted — I think this is right — that Hillary would lose Texas, for sure, and probably Ohio.) I think that Fox News’s analyses suffer when they have him on their shows. Rove is much better because he has more objectivity.
I’d say he’s consumed by making $$$, just like Carl Bernstein whose disappointing career seems to be getting a brief, small puff of wind as a Clinton parasite.
Disk Morris reminds me of a 5 year old having a temper tantrum, when you tell them they can’t have something… screaming and stamping their feet… “”I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!”"
It astounds me ANYONE takes him seriously…
I am no fan of Karl Rove. As a matter of fact, I blame him for much of the negativity in American politics over the past decade.
There is one thing that can be said about Karl, though, even if I hardly ever agree with him. Whatever spin that Karl wants to present, he does so in a logical way from start to finish. It is easy to follow his reasoning, even if you don’t agree with it. This is the reason why he is so dangerously effective at what it does.
Geeze I hate that pink-eyed SOB. Can’t they get somebody else to say this stuff? LOLOL.
It is a crime in my estimation that we have to resort to posting videos and commentaries from the right wingers. Because the only reason we do it is that the elitist left wing Obamedia refuses to report on anything remotely anti-Obama with anything more than a casual hint. In order to get to any substantive discussion that refers to facts we have to tune into channels like Fox. But when they are right they are right. And despite my hatred of Republicans, the Obama cultists and their DNC enablers sure aren’t acting like REAL Democrats.
Eighteen months ago a “troll” on some of those unnamed blogs would say “but Clinton” (meaning Bill, of course) and cans and bottles would fly in from all directions. Now whenever a question is asked that is the standard first sentence of a response. The only difference between the extreme right and the extreme left is direction.
i’m not sure his supporters are extreme leftie though.
Just hypocritical PC merchants.
A socialist has intellectual integrity. Even if you think the economic assumptions are flawed.
The DKos crowd would know a UHC system if if it cured them of bubonic plague.
It’s always important to know what the opposition is saying….It aint pleasnt but smart.
I know, Flea. I was just wincing at his face. I can take looking at Buchanan, but Turd Blossum is just plain foul to look at.
Then don’t look. Just listen
Juan Williams is another commentator who often has smart things to say.
Yeah I did look away but I sure did listen.
I agree about Juan Williams. He has really changed in the past year. He used to be really weak and could not stand up to the conservatives on Fox, but recently he has a much better advocate for the Democrats’ point of view. He has even had the guts to criticise Obama and stand up for Hillary.
Yeah he has some good things to say… but the other night he really got his knickers in a twist when some {white guy} on the program said something to the effect ~~~ black people can’t be elitist~~~… (and I don’t blame him!)
It was actually remarkable how easy Rove went on Obama, they know he is done for, so why go so easy?
Simple answer, they want to keep their swiftboat ready for launching, they feel that the Democratic Party will hope this either goes away or that they do nothing, thus bolstering the GOP attack on elite Democrats in the fall!
This is not good, especially when Rove goes so easy adn everyone knows Rove is a bulldog against dumbness by the Democrats!
Ironically, I could see the Republicans painting themselves as the party of regular people with Obama to run against. I mean what he said is just plain awful. Can you imagine when they got done with that, and topped it all off with his terrorist friends, how deep the fork would be in Obama in November?
Oh there is much more than his terrorist friends he has to deal with, his new found friends as well, Rezko, his do nothing over Exelon leaks, Maytag, Commitee Chair of Nato and Europe doing nothing, Wright, his wife, his lies over his and his families lives, his non-existant legislation and Bills, and ties we have yet to uncover!
Yeah. Who’s going to feel like turkey?
“the bloggers there cannot conceive that anyone could ever even LISTEN to someone with a different point of view.”
Great post, Susan. I mourned the death of Wm F. Buckley although I vehemently disagreed with almost everything he said. I honored him because he loved his country so deeply he as willing to fight in the arena of public ideas.
Same with Buchanan. He’s often wrong, but he’s often perceptive too. And he doesn’t have a dog in this fight, so he’s fairer than, say, Joe Klien.
I definitely agree on Buchanan.
With regards to this election he has offered provocative insights. A good pundit does. I hate his politics but he’s nailed alot of stuff during this primary and it’s a smart thing to keep up with what the opposition is saying. He keeps saying on the McGlaughlin yell show that HRC is the better candidate.
Loathing Karl Rove is fine but refusing to take advantage of his skills as a political hit man is stupid. I don’t have to like someone to listen to them or to find information that they have to impart useful.
If nothing else Democrats should be listening to Rove to see how the Republicans would be “framing” Obama in a general.
If it happens to be something that many of us agree with, oh well. Because only fools believe that “they” are all bad and “we” are all good. Way too simplistic IMHO.
To me, Rove is somebody else’s pawn, meaning he’s like a germ carrier, unaware.
I look at Rove, and given the things he’s done, I figure he’s a target.
So to follow his advice, or even listen to him, is to be trolled.
YMMV.
To each his own. I call it knowing one’s enemy.
Then it would be the political equivalent of whistling past the graveyard and missing the headstone that has your name etched deeply in it.
Who is your comment directed to, beebop?
Why, you Simon.
“Toward these folks, Obama’s attitude is not one of hostility, but of paternalism.”
Nah. I think it’s hostility masquerading as paternalism. I think he’s bitter because these people refuse to acknowledge his wonderfulness. How dare they prefer someone competent?
I think his attitude comes directly from Rev. Wright’s teachings and his church’s philosophy.
One of the tenets of that philosophy is a “rejection of middleclassness.” I had trouble trying to figure out what the he** that meant, given that most Americans ARE regular, middle class folks.
But Obama’s and Michelle’s attitudes, perceived by many to be a bit snooty and arrogant, come directly from this church teaching.
It’s as if being “middle class” is beneath them, and that applies to whites and Blacks.
And he learned that crap from his church.
(They also believe the white church is the
Antichrist, which is crap, given that the
white church led the abolition movement
during the Civil War. But that’s another
subject….)
The Obamas and their fellow church memebers
REJECT “middleclassness.” And that clearly
makes them elitists.
Adlai Stevenson, anyone?
Well, they reject it for themselves, but if I remember right good ole Michelle was encouraging others to not aim so high. Work in the service industry, I think she said. Don’t even try to get into corporate America. It’s just so awful to make $300,000/year. You’d hate it.
Those who reject middleclassness for themselves must also keep others from achieving that for which they stricve. They need the middle and lower classes to take care of them.
So, basically, Michelle is telling “others” to Do as I say, not as I do?????
Michelle Obama LIKES her big mansion, and her live-in Hispanic nanny whom she only pays $6,000 per year.
It appears she’s arrogant AND hypocritical, eh?
Is that true?
Wow.
That looks really bad, what, 125 a week?
She should at least pay a living wage.
Yes, it’s true, simon.
Info came out in the tax returns the Obamas finally released.
Fulltime, live-in nanny: Hispanic, $6,000 per year.
Maybe they knew no self-respecting Black nanny would have accepted such a crappy salary.
Yikes!!! That should tell each and every one of us something about the Obama’s mindset. Good grief!!!!
> > her live-in Hispanic nanny whom she only
> > pays $6,000 per year.
> Is that true?
> Wow.
> That looks really bad, what, 125 a week?
Are you saying that it LOOKS really bad, or that it IS really bad? I ask because, whether something is actually good or bad is more important than how it looks. But in political discussion, it often seems lots of people are more interested in appearances.
> She should at least pay a living wage.
I highly doubt that the Hispanic nanny is in chains. She’s doing that job because it’s the best alternative for her. Whatever agreement she and Ms Obama have come to… how does it become anyone else’s business? “Live and let live” is becoming such a lost art.
By the way, if you’re really concerned about the wages of nannys, it’s really not that hard to find some nannys (check the nearest park with a playground), and surely most of them will be happy to accept money out of your own pocket. Of course, it’s easier to just complain that someone else should be helping them.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
People find themselves in all sorts of predicaments. The nanny is a live-in, so the food, room, and board have to be taken into consideration. But still, this means she is on call for a good part of each day, and more than likely, it is not an 8 hour per day job.
If the nanny had to pay $650.00 dollars per month for an apartment, plus another $100.00 dollars per month for utilities, that would require $ 9000.00 dollars per year. I don;t know if the Obama’s have to pay anything else for their nanny such as medical insurance, but that is probably unlikely. Therefore, this nanny makes somewhere around $ 15,000.00 dollars per year. Considering that the job, and admittedly this is a guess, is more than a 40 hour work week, she is making a pittance.
I have seen it written that Michelle Obama is making over $ 300,000.00 dollars per year, and I imagine Barack is making at least $169,000.00 dollars per year as a US Senator (probably more if other income is included). So even if you say that their total income is $ 469,000.00 dollars per year, they are paying their nanny just 3% of their total income! Michelle Obama has already said that she pays $ 10,000.00 dollars per year for just some of her daughters extra-curricular activities. This is 2% of their total income!
The Obama’s have a bargain with their nanny. Although the nanny has a place to live, I still feel sorry for her since she is not being paid what her services are worth.
She’s doing that job because it’s the best alternative for her. Whatever agreement she and Ms Obama have come to… how does it become anyone else’s business? “Live and let live” is becoming such a lost art.
And awful lot of black domestics got paid shit wages from white people using that same justification.
What was the nanny’s “legal” status?
A Stupid question and I expect Bernie would agree.
why wouldn’t The Obama seek good fortune for the nanny person?
What is a living wage in Chicago these days?
interesting question about the legal status - hope someone finds out. that issue all by itself has cost candidates their races before - but, of course, NOTHING obama does is bad, even if it’s bad for others to do it. i almost forgot that….
I know it is something odd, paying 6k to another to watch over your children. Where is the show of repect for another humanbeing, inspite of my akward question.
I was paying 1k a month for day care when the kids were younger. It would kill me to do it, not the money, but having to do it. I hated it.
yes, but we can’t forget the hand-me-down clothes. /sarc.
I’m bad at math but would the nanny be making $ 3.12/hrly.
LOL, Why am I not surprised that you guys actually place value on what Karl Rove has to say about Democrats.
LOL why am I not surprised that you are too dumb to understand that knowing your enemy is part of any successful strategy?
Knowing your enemy’s puppet master is a part of a winning strategy.
Lots of conflicts, but sometimes I’m surprised how difficult it is for some of those people to get their heads around the concept of rule of law, and those with power who adhere to it.
I agree…I don’t hate all republicans…there are alot of republicans who hate it that their party was HIJACKED by extremists of the far right and many that are old fashiond fiscal conservatives are utterly disgusted by the wastrel ways of the current administration and consider GWB a traitor to the cause.
Its called having an open mind… but obamabots can’t cause they have had their minds surgically removed by all the f***ng dribble of their zookeeper
If you’re too stupid to try to find out where your enemy is planting his landmines before you cross the field, you deserve to get your legs blown off.
You really have to go scrub your eyeballs after watching Karl Rove. Ewwww…..
But you cannot deny that he is absolutely brilliant when it comes to politics. Democrats would be wise to pay attention and to know their enemy.
The democrats behind Obama?
heh.
Again, I think, given his penchant for nixonian dirty tricks, Rove is being trolled.
(Just a hunch)
Real democrats should just work on behalf of the American people, and not buy into the PR presidency.
This is the man who helped make this fucking mess, in conjunction with the rest of them, the one we are now trying to clean up, from Iraq to the American political scene. Rove gave us Bush, and really, I’ll send your regards to the Iraqi people, and all those tortured, and murdered, because of Rove’s decisions. He wanted a war time president as part of his PR push, remember, and BOOM goes Bhagdad. At best, he’s feeding you disinfo.
I’d sooner listen to a Nazi, than to Rove.
Please dont’ try to sell me on him, I see a corrupt hapless stooge.
If I don’t tolerate Auchi, I don’t tolerate Rove.
Both puppets.
“It is a crime in my estimation that we have to resort to posting videos and commentaries from the right wingers.”
Um, Fleafliker, might I suggest
a) a newspaper that endorsed Clinton
b) a Clinton surrogate
c) the Clinton campaign
Frankly, if the only other people that held my opinions were Karl Rove and noted racist Pat Buchanan (seriously, look at his writings), I would spend some quality time examining those beliefs.
You don’t have to agree with these people to learn something from them. What part of knowing your enemy do you not understand?
Again, Marge, who pulls your enemies strings?
You trust Rove?
I don’t.
I always feel as if someone else controls his pipes, what he thinks, and says.
In terms of ideology, that is…
No simon, we don’t TRUST or LIKE rove, but as I said above, if you’re too stupid to try to find out ahead of time where your enemy is planting his landmines before you cross the field, you deserve to get your legs blown off.
“It is a crime in my estimation that we have to resort to posting videos and commentaries from the right wingers.”
Did you not learn early on between NH and SC that you say anything bad towards Obama in any fashion, you are labelled a racist?
So for as you claim:
a) a newspaper that endorsed Clinton
b) a Clinton surrogate
c) the Clinton campaign
is impossible to have, as on simple things like “fairy tale” of Obama’s Iraq crap had Michelle Obama inject the race card, and same with Camp Obama doing it over Hillary’s MLK statement, so proving that camp Clinton learns and doesn’t open a door for Obama to try escaping his own words from!
When Karl Rove starts writing op-eds titled, “How to Beat Hillary Clinton” directed at Barack Obama in the WSJ, then it’s time we started paying attention to what he’s saying.
So, thanks for pointing it out.
I listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Boortz from time to time for as long as I can stand it. I get a lot of information from doing so. And, I pay attention to what Pat Buchanan says because he’s often a surprisingly realistic voice in the middle of the cacophony of idiocy. I read American Conservative magazine for its insightful foreign policy opinions. I pay attention to what these people say, because they are the opinion leaders among the vast majority of Republican voters.
I don’t listen to Michael Savage or read Dick Morris–they are maniacs, foaming at the mouth psychotics, in their shocking and sad spiral of psychosis, babbling their paranoid and destructive delusions. No one with any sense of dignity wants to witness or hear such awful depradations of the soul.
Praising Karl Rove proves that the Clinton campaign is in self-destruct mode.
Yawwwwwwwwwwn.
LOL, Uppity!
Cee assumes the rest of us are too poorly educated, under-informed, to understand which campaign is actually in “self-destruct mode.”
Quite predictable, she is, in changing the subject from Obama’s failures as quickly as she possibly can.
Much like an adolescent does, eh?
Nobody is ‘praising’ him… Listening is not praising. Being able to Listen goes along way to understanding; agreeing or disagreeing aside…
It is quite a foolish fallacy to assume Pat Buchanan is a racist just because he doesn’t roll over and accept everything Obama’s bamboozling preacher says as gospel.
Using the word “racist” to trash anybody and everybody at a moment’s notice actually DIMINISHES the significance of the word racist when it is truly appropos.
Pat Buchanan is not a racist.
But he CAN see men like Rev. Wright for exactly what they are.
So can middle America. So can I.
KARL ROVE!!??? On FOX “news”!?? You’re using this to convince people what??? Dear God. I could only listen as far as when he was asked about Conservatives disparaging whole groups of people when they say things like “San Francisco values” or “elites in big cities” and his nonanswer was that people in places like that think that there’s little interesting between their big cities on the coasts. After all that we know about Karl Rove, I’m sure that his intentions and beliefs are pretty much opposite of what most Democrats stand for. If you want him in your corner, that’s up to you. I still find him despicable, deceitful, and wrong about just about everything.
Time for you to grow up, christy.
Obama can’t win the White House without the very people Karl Rove represents.
Those Reagan Democrats and Independents are not impressed by the San Francisco millionaires, or by Obama’s pandering to them.
You may not like that, but it is reality.
Your Obama may have cost the Democratic Party the White House by his foolishness.
Blame Obama for that, not Karl Rove or Hillary Clinton or anyone else.
“My Obama?” I’m going to whole-heartedly support whichever Democratic candidate is in the general election. Clinton and Obama both AND a bunch of bickering Democrats may cost the party the White House with all their foolishness. Grow up? Really. That’s just adorable.
Let me rephrase my point. No matter how savvy Karl Rove may be, his intentions are generally NOT in line with mine or any other fair and rational person I know. I question his purpose, his long-term plan. And in the meantime I’m not going to be suckered into agreeing with him about anything.
Mary, Rove would in some quarters be considered a war criminal.
Did you forget?
Are you OK with that?
That has NOTHING to do with knowing Rove reflects what the Republican Party will use to attack Obambi in November, Simon.
Don’t patronize your fellow posters.
Christy
unless he starts beating up Hillary… then I bet you turn the volume WAY up eh???
You’re making a false assumption. I’d support and defend Obama and Clinton and ANYBODY disparaged by the likes of Carl Rove. I am NOT anti-Clinton. Never have been. I’d love to see her in the White House. I’d just like to not have two groups of Democrats trashing each other’s candidate. It’s completely counter productive and possibly only serves to make the undecideds more angry and cynical and misinformed than they already are. Focus the attacks on the real problems — the neocons, the presumptive Republican nominee, the war criminals still in office, and the behind-the-scene schemsters like Carl Rove.
Just because you disagree with someone most of the time doesn’t mean that the person NEVER speaks a word of truth. I guess that is why we have the term “the truth hurts“.
The truth may hurt, but you shouldn’t cover your eyes and ears because you prefer to live in a fantasy world of Obama-speak 24/7. You only hurt yourself.
What would you suggest we do to actually get anything other than “leg tingling” swooning messiah news, watch Cafferty?
How about if we watch Roland. Obama could drown kittens and puppies on camera and he would tell us it was a goooood thing.
Christy: You quit on this blog yesterday. You promised you weren’t coming back. Words? Just words?
Cancel the party.
When I’m down, and troubled and I need a helping hand, and nothing, no nothing is going ri=ght, I just call out your name, and I know whatever you say, will give me such a great laugh. You are smart, sassy and irrepressable. And you are one QUICK person
xxoo.
Cute. Feel better?
I’m going to say it one more time. I will support and hope with every fiber of my bieng that either Clinton or Obama win in November. I’m not whatever you people disparagingly call Obama supporters. I’m a little bit more concerned with the big picture. The Conservatives are sitting back right now truly enjoying the fractured and bickering Democratic Party—many acting like a bunch of children who can’t get along. You’re doing their work for them. By the time we can focus on the general election, which tey may be planning on stealing again one way or another, it may be too late.
Karl Rove nailed Obama down.
Yes, Paul. And Obama’s ARROGANCE gave Karl Rove the ammunition.
Obama is responsible for that, and I do hope the superdelegates are paying attention to his inexperience and his fumbling.
Lot’s of people nailed Obama, and way before Rove.
Rove has a bully pulpit.
I think Rove is war criminal, I have to question those who support him, just as I do those who support Obama.
You can, simon.
But it means nothing, in terms of knowing Rove reflects how the Repubs will use Obama’s foibles in November.
Now stop posting the same thing over and over and over again.